The ClassWar Has Officially Begun

[WillowTree]

So it's not class warfare when corporate income has increased 88% while wages increased 1%? CEO and executive pay has increased 27% while worker salary has increased 2%.

Income inequality hasn't been this great since the 1920s.

You are correct sir. Wonder if Willow knows this

One is not forced to work for any corporation that treats you in a manner you don't agree with is one?

 

[Meister]

Your lack of knowledge of recent history is astounding.

I will say this though. The speech was about rallying his base. None of his policies will get passed in the House in the next 14 months.

You really think so?

There are a lot of polls out there showing the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy being pretty popular. You think they're all just his base?

Oh, it's a very popular idea, having everyone pay their fair share of taxes. You see it on this board a lot with "conservatives" calling for a flat tax. They just don't realize that it would be a tax increase for the top earners.

But regardless of whether it is popular or not, or whether it will help the economy or the budget, Obama is putting it forth. Therefore, no Republican in the House or Senate will vote for it. Which means it's DOA.

It wasn't all that popular with democrats when they had Congress and the Senate either.
I for one would like to see a "fair share tax" increase for all....but only after we see the politicians get real with the spending cuts. Then we will know just how much of a tax increase is necessary.

Somehow when tax increase passes first, it's always "we'll get back to you on spending cuts."

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

So it's not class warfare when corporate income has increased 88% while wages increased 1%? CEO and executive pay has increased 27% while worker salary has increased 2%.

Income inequality hasn't been this great since the 1920s.

You are correct sir. Wonder if Willow knows this

One is not forced to work for any corporation that treats you in a manner you don't agree with is one?[/QUOTE]

that's funny.

 

[Dot Com]

The rich keep getting richer, in large part due to politicians reluctance to bar contributions and reinforced by the conservative Robert$ Court inre: Citizens United. I know Lets declare war on the poor a la Rick Santelli

 

[manu1959]

deregulation of the banking industry for one.

Tax cuts for the wealthy.

ya clinton and carter should have never signed those bills.....

 

[OODA_Loop]

Re: Citizens United

My incorporation does not lessen my Constitutional protections.

 

[EriktheRed]

Your lack of knowledge of recent history is astounding.

I will say this though. The speech was about rallying his base. None of his policies will get passed in the House in the next 14 months.

You really think so?

There are a lot of polls out there showing the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy being pretty popular. You think they're all just his base?

Oh, it's a very popular idea, having everyone pay their fair share of taxes. You see it on this board a lot with "conservatives" calling for a flat tax. They just don't realize that it would be a tax increase for the top earners.

But regardless of whether it is popular or not, or whether it will help the economy or the budget, Obama is putting it forth. Therefore, no Republican in the House or Senate will vote for it. Which means it's DOA.

But of course, and the Prez knows that very well himself. This is aobut trying to change the narrative and only time will tell how successful he'll be.

It's definitely a good start, though.

 

[Dot Com]

Re: Citizens United

My incorporation does not lessen my Constitutional protections.

Can your corporation serve in the military or be sent to jail en masse? I'm guessing "no". YET that entity is allowed separate representation/access to Representatives through $. Sounds like double-dipping w/o paying the full price to me.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I for one would like to see a "fair share tax" increase for all....but only after we see the politicians get real with the spending cuts. Then we will know just how much of a tax increase is necessary.

The problem with first balancing the budget via spending cuts only, is that even if you get rid of ALL discretionary spending (military too), unless you address the rise in medical costs, you will simply have to re-visit all your cuts in a few years when the budget goes back into deficit. This is due to medical costs rising faster than the growth in GDP. (This is also why an Amendment is such a piss poor idea.) Basically, you would get yourself into a position of always cutting, year over year, while never getting balanced for more than a year or two and never addressing your revenue.

However, if you first raise taxes back up to historic norms (19%-20% of GDP) or even slightly higher (23%), now you have a target for your cuts and cost controls. And it's a target that won't change year over year. Now you know what to aim for in controlling medical costs and keeping long term spending manageable.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Re: Citizens United

My incorporation does not lessen my Constitutional protections.

Can your corporation serve in the military or be sent to jail en masse?

No those are embodied, personified rights unlike speech or free expression which can be pursued as a construct.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Re: Citizens United

My incorporation does not lessen my Constitutional protections.

Cowardly, selfish response to a very serious issue.

 

[manu1959]

I for one would like to see a "fair share tax" increase for all....but only after we see the politicians get real with the spending cuts. Then we will know just how much of a tax increase is necessary.

The problem with first balancing the budget via spending cuts only, is that even if you get rid of ALL discretionary spending (military too), unless you address the rise in medical costs, you will simply have to re-visit all your cuts in a few years when the budget goes back into deficit. This is due to medical costs rising faster than the growth in GDP. (This is also why an Amendment is such a piss poor idea.) Basically, you would get yourself into a position of always cutting, year over year, while never getting balanced for more than a year or two and never addressing your revenue.

However, if you first raise taxes back up to historic norms (19%-20% of GDP) or even slightly higher (23%), now you have a target for your cuts and cost controls. And it's a target that won't change year over year. Now you know what to aim for in controlling medical costs and keeping long term spending manageable.

when the government started covering medical costs is when the industry started jacking up prices....

 

[DontBeStupid]

I for one would like to see a "fair share tax" increase for all....but only after we see the politicians get real with the spending cuts. Then we will know just how much of a tax increase is necessary.

The problem with first balancing the budget via spending cuts only, is that even if you get rid of ALL discretionary spending (military too), unless you address the rise in medical costs, you will simply have to re-visit all your cuts in a few years when the budget goes back into deficit. This is due to medical costs rising faster than the growth in GDP. (This is also why an Amendment is such a piss poor idea.) Basically, you would get yourself into a position of always cutting, year over year, while never getting balanced for more than a year or two and never addressing your revenue.

However, if you first raise taxes back up to historic norms (19%-20% of GDP) or even slightly higher (23%), now you have a target for your cuts and cost controls. And it's a target that won't change year over year. Now you know what to aim for in controlling medical costs and keeping long term spending manageable.

when the government started covering medical costs is when the industry started jacking up prices....

Yeah I can see that from the link you provided.

Wait, you provided no link.

Oh well.

 

[manu1959]

The problem with first balancing the budget via spending cuts only, is that even if you get rid of ALL discretionary spending (military too), unless you address the rise in medical costs, you will simply have to re-visit all your cuts in a few years when the budget goes back into deficit. This is due to medical costs rising faster than the growth in GDP. (This is also why an Amendment is such a piss poor idea.) Basically, you would get yourself into a position of always cutting, year over year, while never getting balanced for more than a year or two and never addressing your revenue.

However, if you first raise taxes back up to historic norms (19%-20% of GDP) or even slightly higher (23%), now you have a target for your cuts and cost controls. And it's a target that won't change year over year. Now you know what to aim for in controlling medical costs and keeping long term spending manageable.

when the government started covering medical costs is when the industry started jacking up prices....

Yeah I can see that from the link you provided.


Oh well.

i can see you have refuted my claim with a link ....Wait, you provided no link....oh well...

you may want to look up when prices rose and why....

what happened in 1965 and then..............http://www.healthguideusa.org/health_statistics/private_health_expenditures.htm

 

[OODA_Loop]

Re: Citizens United

My incorporation does not lessen my Constitutional protections.

Cowardly, selfish response to a very serious issue.

The core of the matter or have you some other legal rationale to support the act of incorporating for business purposes diminishing your protection to be able to spend as much as your organization sees fit promoting the political positions and/or candidates which best meet /serve its' interests.

 

[DontBeStupid]

when the government started covering medical costs is when the industry started jacking up prices....

Yeah I can see that from the link you provided.


Oh well.

i can see you have refuted my claim with a link ....Wait, you provided no link....oh well...

you may want to look up when prices rose and why....

what happened in 1965 and then..............Private Health Expenditures 1960-2007

Refute your claim? Not how it works bub. If YOU make a claim YOU need to prove it. I merely pointed out that you didn't even try.

But, of course, now you provided this nifty link to a graph that starts in the 1960s. So? Medicare would go up as the cost of health care would go up. That doesn't mean Medicare DRIVES the increase in health care.

Nice try though.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Re: Citizens United

My incorporation does not lessen my Constitutional protections.

Cowardly, selfish response to a very serious issue.

The core of the matter or have you some other legal rationale to support the act of incorporating for business purposes diminishing your protection to be able to spend as much as your organization sees fit promoting the political positions and/or candidates which best meet /serve its' interests.

YOU incorporating does not change YOUR right to free speech or anything else. However, it does not grant your corporation magical rights on par with your own personal ones. Or, in the case of Citizens United, even MORE rights than you as a person have.

 

[Dot Com]

Re: Citizens United

My incorporation does not lessen my Constitutional protections.

Cowardly, selfish response to a very serious issue.

The core of the matter or have you some other legal rationale to support the act of incorporating for business purposes diminishing your protection to be able to spend as much as your organization sees fit promoting the political positions and/or candidates which best meet /serve its' interests.

It is the current law but it violates "1 man- 1 vote". Corporations have a monetary advantage that drowns out individual voters. Most conservatives on this board villify McCain for trying to remedy that w/ campaign finance reform.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Cowardly, selfish response to a very serious issue.

The core of the matter or have you some other legal rationale to support the act of incorporating for business purposes diminishing your protection to be able to spend as much as your organization sees fit promoting the political positions and/or candidates which best meet /serve its' interests.

YOU incorporating does not change YOUR right to free speech or anything else. However, it does not grant your corporation magical rights on par with your own personal ones. Or, in the case of Citizens United, even MORE rights than you as a person have.

Please elaborate on the rights it affirmed and increased.

 

[Mr.Nick]

It began long ago when the republicans insisted on policies that started the fall in middle class incomes.

So you side with authoritarianism...